Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Standing different ground: the spatial heterogeneity of territorial disputes

  • Published:
GeoJournal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent developments in spatial analysis and spatial data have allowed researchers to investigate various geographical factors in the quantitative analysis of conflict and war (Ward in Polit Geogr 21(2):155–158, 2002). Despite the importance of territory in interstate conflict, there has been a limited interest in the application of spatial analysis to the study of territorial conflict. Using geographically weighted regression (GWR) we evaluated the existing explanations of territorial conflict provided by a global scale analysis that assumes a spatial consistency in the explanatory variables. Specifically, we revisited Paul Huth’s foundational work by using GWR to examine the spatial pattern in the sign and significance of the variables. The result of GWR shows that the escalation of territorial conflict cannot be fully explained by one universal model. There is a high level of spatial variation in the regression parameters and the explanatory power of the model varies over space. A k-means cluster analysis was implemented for a further investigation of the regional pattern of the underlying causes of territorial disputes. The result of our GWR suggests the necessity and possibility to pursue a local or regional scale approach to the study of territorial conflict, an approach that challenges an epistemology of seeking a single explanation for the causes of conflict that neglects regional context. The spatial heterogeneity in the causes of territorial conflict escalation we find is framed within a narrative of the intertwined processes of colonialism, Cold War legacies, and competition for resources.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The Militarized Interstate Dispute (MID) data records militarized incidents, such as threats, display or use force against one or more other states between 1816 and 2001. The information includes actor(s) and target, incident data and type, issue type, location description, fatalities of actor(s), and the source of information (Ghosn et al. 2004).

References

  • Agnew, J. (2003). Geopolitics: Re-visioning world politics. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anselin, L. (1988). Spatial econometrics: Method and models. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, A. (2005). Location, location, location…identifying hot spots of international conflict. International Interactions, 31(3), 251–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brecher, M., & Wilkenfeld, J. (1997). A study of crisis. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

  • Bueno de mesquita, B., & Lalman, D. (1990). Domestic opposition and foreign war. American Political Science Review, 84(3), 746–766.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buhaug, H., & Gleditsch, K. (2008). Contagion or confusion? Why conflicts cluster in space. International Studies Quarterly, 52(2), 215–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buhaug, H., & Lujala, P. (2005). Accounting for scale: Measuring geography in quantitative studies of civil war. Political Geography, 24(4), 399–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buhaug, H., & Rød, J. (2006). Local determinants of African civil wars, 1970–2001. Political Geography, 25(3), 315–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buzan, B., & Waever, O. (2003). Regions and power: The structure of international security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Charlton, M., & Fotheringham, A. (2009). Geographically weighted regression: White paper. Maynooth: National Centre for Geocomputation, National University of Ireland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charlton, M., Fotheringham, S., & Brunson, C. (2003). GWR 3: Software for geographically weighted regression, Version 3.0.1. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Spatial Analysis Research Group, University of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne.

  • Diehl, P. (1991). The new geopolitics. In M. Ward (Ed.), The new geopolitics (pp. 11–38). Philadelphia, PA: Gordon and Breach.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodds, K. (2003). Cold war geopolitics. In J. Agnew, K. Mitchell, & G. Toal (Eds.), A companion to political geography (pp. 204–218). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

  • Dzurek, D. (2005). What makes territory important: Tangible and intangible dimensions. GeoJournal, 64(4), 263–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elden, S. (2009). Terror and territory: The spatial extent of territory. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fotheringham, A., Brunsdon, A., & Charlton, M. (2002). Geographically weighted regression: The analysis of spatially varying relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghosn, F., Palmer, G., & Bremer, S. (2004). The MID3 data set, 1993–2001: Procedures, coding rules, and description. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 21(2), 133–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibler, D. (1996). Alliances that never balance: The territorial settlement treaty. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 15(1), 75–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilmore, E., Gleditsch, N., Lujala, P., & Rød, J. (2005). Conflict diamonds: A new dataset. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 22(3), 257–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleditsch, K. S. (2002). All international politics is local: The diffusion of conflict, integration, and democratization. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodchild, M., & Janelle, D. (2010). Toward critical spatial thinking in the social sciences and humanities. GeoJournal, 75(1), 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurr, T., Jaggers, K., & Moore, W. (1990). The transformation of the Western State: The growth of democracy, autocracy, and state power since 1800. Studies in Comparative International Development, 25(1), 73–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, F. (1983). The making of the second cold war. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemmer, C., & Katzenstein, P. (2002). Why is there no NATO in Asia? Collective identity, regionalism, and the origins of multilateralism. International Organization, 56(3), 575–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensel, P. (2000). Territory: Theory and evidence on geography and conflict. In J. Vasquez (Ed.), What do we know about war? (pp. 57–84). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hensel, P., & Mitchell, S. (2005). Issue indivisibility and territorial claims. GeoJournal, 64(4), 275–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herbst, J. (2000). States and power in Africa: Comparative lessons in authority and control. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huth, P. (1996). Standing your ground: Territorial disputes and international conflict. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huth, P., & Allee, T. (2002). The democratic peace and territorial conflict in the twentieth century. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huth, P., & Russett, B. (1998). Deterrence failure and crisis escalation. International Studies Quarterly, 32(1), 29–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, L., & Rousseeuw, P. (2005). Finding groups in data: An introduction to cluster analysis. New York: Wiley-Interscience.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Billon, P. (2001). The political ecology of war: Natural resources and armed conflicts. Political Geography, 20(5), 561–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lujala, P., Gleditsch, N., & Gilmore, E. (2005). A diamond curse? civil war and a lootable resource. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49(4), 538–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lujala, P., Rød, J., & Thieme, N. (2007). Fighting over oil: Introducing a new dataset. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 24(3), 239–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, P. (1992). The Arabs (3rd ed.). London, NY: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maoz, Z., & Russett, B. (1993). Normative and structural causes of democratic peace, 1946–1986. American Political Science Review, 87(3), 624–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosse, G. L. (1993). Confronting the nation: Jewish and Western nationalism. Hanover: Brandies University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, A. (2002). National claims to territory in the modern state system: Geographical considerations. Geopolitics, 7(2), 193–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, D., & Paasi, A. (1998). Fences and neighbours in the postmodern world: boundary narratives in political geography. Progress in Human geography, 22(2), 186–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Lear, S., Diehl, P., Frazier, D., & Allee, T. (2005). Dimension of territorial conflict and resolution: Tangible and intangible values of territory. GeoJournal, 64(4), 259–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Loughlin, J., & Wittmer, F. (2011). The localized geographies of violence in the North Caucasus of Russia, 1999–2007. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 101(1), 178–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Loughlin, J. (2000). Geography as space and geography as place: The divide between political science and political geography continues. Geopolitics, 5(3), 126–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ó Tuathail, G. (1998). Political geography III: Dealing with deterritorialization. Progress in Human Geography, 22(1), 81–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Páez, A., & Scott, D. (2004). Spatial statistics for urban analysis: A review of techniques with examples. GeoJournal, 61(1), 53–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Páez, A., Uchida, T., & Miyamoto, K. (2002). A general framework for estimation and inference of geographically weighted regression models: 1. Location-specific kernel bandwidths and a test for local heterogeneity. Environment and Planning A, 34(4), 733–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peluso, N., & Vandergeest, P. (2011). Political ecologies of war and forests: Counterinsurgencies and the making of national natures. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 101(3), 587–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raleigh, C., Cunningham, D., Wilhelmsen, L., & Gleditsch, N. (2006). Conflict Sites 1946–2005. Centre for the Study of Civil War, PRIO.http://www.prio.no/sptrans/1140767671/conflict%20site%20codebook%20v2.pdf. Accessed 12 September 2011.

  • Raleigh, C., Linke, A., Hegre, H., & Karlsen, J. (2010). Introducing ACLED: An armed conflict location and event dataset. Journal of Peace Research, 47(5), 651–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senese, P. (2005). Territory, contiguity, and international conflict: Assessing a new joint explanation. American Journal of Political Science, 49(4), 769–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senese, P., & Vasquez, J. (2003). A unified explanation of territorial conflict: Testing the impact of sampling bias, 1919–1992. International Studies Quarterly, 47(2), 275–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senese, P., & Vasquez, J. (2008). The steps to war. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidaway, J. (2008). The geography of political geography. In K. Cox, M. Low, & J. Robinson (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of political geography (pp. 21–40). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, T. (2003). The reconstruction of nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569–1999. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stubbs, R. (2002). ASEAN PLUS THREE emerging East Asian regionalism? Asian Survey, 42(3), 440–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasquez, J. (1993). The war puzzle. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vasquez, J. (1995). Why do neighbors fight—Proximity, contiguity, or territoriality? Journal of Peace Research, 32(3), 277–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasquez, J., & Henehan, M. (2001). Territorial disputes and the probability of war, 1816–1992. Journal of Peace Research, 38(2), 123–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasquez, J., & Valeriano, B. (2008). Territory as a source of conflict and a road to peace. In J. Bercovitch, V. Kremenyuk, & W. Zatman (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict resolution (pp. 191–209). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Väyrynen, R. (1984). Regional conflict formations: An intractable problem of international relations. Journal of Peace Research, 21(4), 337–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walter, B. (2003). Explaining the intractability of territorial conflict. International Studies Review, 5(3), 137–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walter, B. (2006). Building reputation: Why governments fight some separatists but not others. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 313–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of international politics. Reading, MA: Addision-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, K. (2000). Structural realism after the Cold War. International Security, 25(1), 5–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, M. (2002). The development and application of spatial analysis for political methodology. Political Geography, 21(2), 155–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, D., & Tiefelsdorf, M. (2005). Multicollinearity and correlation among local regression coefficients in geographically weighted regression. Journal of Geographical Systems, 7(2), 161–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windle, M., Rose, G., Devillers, R., & Fortin, M-J. (2010). Exploring spatial non-stationarity of fisheries survey data using geographically weighted regression (GWR): An example from the Northwest Atlantic. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 67(1), 145–154.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea

    Sang-Hyun Chi

  2. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA

    Colin Flint

Authors
  1. Sang-Hyun Chi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Colin Flint
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sang-Hyun Chi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chi, SH., Flint, C. Standing different ground: the spatial heterogeneity of territorial disputes. GeoJournal 78, 553–573 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-012-9451-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-012-9451-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation